I thank the Minister for her response, which is rather depressing in its rejection of our proposal.
My reference to the pension deficit fund dealt with the assets. Tagged on to the end of that discussion was a comment that, in return for obtaining the assets, the Government were also acquiring the liabilities. I am not sure that that is an exact parallel. As I understand it, the assets are real and, even if sold in a measured way, will generate cash for the country which will go to HM Treasury, but the liabilities are ongoing. If I am right, the main pension responsibilities will be met on a pay-as-you-go basis. We are comparing apples with pears. One is a substantial reduction in our deficit position; the other is admittedly a long-term commitment but does not need to be capitalised on the resource accounts. Although I accept that £8 billion is a substantial sum of money, it does not really come into the question of whether the funds from the sale of Royal Mail should go back into the Post Office.
Secondly, the £1.34 billion package—which, as I mentioned, is both a continuation of work started under the previous Government and a commitment on behalf of the present Government to ensure that the Post Office is retained on a sustainable footing—is also a mixture. As I tried to say, the evidence is that it seems to result in a reduction in the number of post offices and certainly a change in the nature of post office services very similar to that which was available before.
My third point is that without a proper package of business activities, there is no way that the Post Office can survive, however it is organised. It is depressing to read that the latest contract for services which could have gone to the Post Office from government has been given to Citigroup to operate. I suspect that that is only the first of a number of difficulties facing the network in future.
However, this was a probing amendment. The Minister has been kind enough to share her answer with us. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment 12 withdrawn.
Amendment 12A
Moved by
Postal Services Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara
(Labour)
in the House of Lords on Monday, 14 March 2011.
It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL)
and
Debate on bills on Postal Services Bill.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
726 c65-6 Session
2010-12Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 15:22:12 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_724715
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_724715
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_724715